Millions Spent Illegally on Obama Amnesty Plan; So Who is Going to Prison?

From Ernest Istook --

Some bureaucrats could end up in prison for implementing President Obama’s amnesty plan for illegal aliens. Even if they don’t violate the brand-new court injunction, they are accountable under a special federal statute.

It’s illegal to spend federal money on purposes never approved by Congress. Yet Mr. Obama has bureaucrats going full-speed ahead to create the mechanism that would process amnesty for millions, even while a court injunction requires that actual processing cannot yet begin.

Preparations are proceeding “full-throttle,” according to Judicial Watch, which works to make government accountable. The group has uncovered details about some of the tens of millions of dollars already being spent to launch Mr. Obama’s amnesty plan and called for a full investigation. Billions more in tax dollars are also on the line.

However, there is personal risk for all who do Mr. Obama’s bidding rather than obey the laws that govern federal payments.

Each person who violates what’s called the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S. Code Sec. 1341) could be fined $5,000, sent to prison for two years, lose their job, or all of these. That law makes no exceptions for those who claim they merely obeyed orders from superiors, including the president.

Mr. Obama did not personally sign an executive order to put his amnesty plan in place. Although Mr. Obama claims credit and blame, the orders technically come from a Cabinet secretary. Orders then are carried out by subordinate agency heads plus a small army of bureaucrats who process the paperwork and get checks issued.

Those payments are already happening despite being spent on a program not authorized by law. Congress has never approved spending money for this purpose.

While Mr. Obama avoided a personal signature on the incriminating paperwork, a multitude of clerical workers don’t have that luxury. They are risking their jobs and freedom. So is Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who issued the formal instructions to do Mr. Obama’s bidding.

Carrying out illegal orders is no excuse under federal law. Because there evidently is no statute of limitations on the Anti-Deficiency Act, therefore a new president and attorney-general in 2017 could pursue criminal charges as well as firings or job disciplines against all persons who approve payments on the amnesty program. And these fall guys would likely have to pay their own legal fees.

Federal Judge Andrew Hanen last week enjoined the government from launching the amnesty program. Judge Hanen’s order did not dispute Mr. Obama’s authority to avoid deportations by applying prosecutorial discretion. But the judge pointed out that Mr. Obama was creating new law by going farther, namely by issuing certifications of “lawful presence” plus work permits.

Even if the executive branch had legal power to create new programs — which the judge’s order questioned — Judge Hanen ruled that it still would require months of prior public notice and comments about the details, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Instead, Mr. Obama had things prepared secretly in advance, then launched his blitzkrieg before opponents could learn the details. To enable processing 4 million to 5 million expected amnesty applications, since the end of November, the Department of Homeland Security:

• Has received 5,000 applications for 1,000 workers it is hiring at salaries up to $157,000 a year (One estimate says these salaries will run $50-million a year.);

• Signed a $7.8-million lease to provide them with office space in Arlington, Virginia;

• Solicited for hundreds of contractors to assist with managing the program and its data;

• Requested proposals to purchase 39-million high-tech plastic ID cards with built-in RF chips (used to create “lawful presence” and “work authorization” identity cards for millions of illegal aliens) 

Plus, the IRS is ready to respond to Obama’s actions by unleashing billions in federal cash payments directly to those receiving executive amnesty.

The amount actually spent so far is a secret closely-guarded by the Obama team, as are projections of future expenses. A group of Republican senators on Jan. 22 sent a formal request to find out the full costs. Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican; Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican; and Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, wrote the Citizenship and Immigration Services to ask for a detailed accounting.

The eventual answers may reveal that a lot of federal workers are in trouble for going along with Obama’s secret and unauthorized plan.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, has labeled it illegal for money to be spent on Obama’s amnesty program.

Training materials for federal workers are chock-full of warnings about not violating the Anti-Deficiency Act.

For example, materials from the General Services Administration warns never to initiate any purchases or contracts without obtaining approvals that include “written assurance from responsible fiscal authority,” plus checking with their legal department and budget officers.

The 2013 Fiscal Law Deskbook published by the federal Judge Advocate School advises federal workers they can only “incur … obligations for expenditures within the limits and purposes of appropriations.”

The White House claims that the massive expenses of amnesty processing will be covered by fees charged to applicants, but that fails the laugh test because: 1) expenses are already massive, but zero fees have been collected to date; 2) there have been no calculations released to match expenses with fees; and 3) the Constitution forbids spending any money unless it first is approved by Congress.

Mr. Obama’s disregard for the law seemingly has no limits. His publicly-stated goal is to use his last two years to determine the shape of America for the next ten years. Changing the composition of America is just part of his strategy.

Smirking, Mr. Obama considers himself immune from consequences. But he can only usurp power with the assistance of others within the bureaucracy.

If those now spending millions of our money without authority are punished eventually, they may finally realize that their proper loyalty is to obey the laws of our land instead of a blind loyalty to President Obama. 

Regulations Could Kill Your Labor-Saving Home Appliances

From Ernest Istook --

Be prepared to work harder at home. The era of affordable labor-saving devices is threatened by rising appliance costs due to federal energy regulations.

Washing clothes by hand sounds Third World to Americans, but how else does a limited budget handle the sticker shock from such as washing machines and dryers commonly priced at $600 to $1,000? That’s for separate units, not both together.

Nobody saves money by buying more expensive products when the claimed energy savings don’t materialize. That’s because we commonly don’t keep appliances and electronics long enough to close the cost gap.

Even stricter federal energy regulations are in the pipeline not only for washers and dryers but also for refrigerators, freezers, all types of lamps and lights, dishwashers, ice makers, air conditioners, furnaces, space heaters, ovens, stoves and lots more, including chargers and power supplies for cellphones and other personal electronics.

Each product gets its own vast, dizzying array of proposed mind-numbing new standards on power consumption, design and labeling, with details for each variation in which they are sold.

How would you like being told that there’s even more “in Appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430,” as one edict says? Any time your appendices climb to Z, you’re way past being reasonable.

Manufacturers such as General Electric, Panasonic, Sub-Zero and others are petitioning the Department of Energy for relief from the tedious new power-use testing requirements that are the prelude to an avalanche of more regulations.

The mantra from the green energy crowd is that we should ignore higher purchase prices, because we’ll eventually get it back from savings on our electric bills.

But the feds often calculate supposed savings over a 30-year span (sometimes only 9 years) on products that we’re unlikely to keep that long. They wear out, break down or become obsolete. Even The New York Times published a report that the fuel savings from more miles per gallon won’t offset higher auto prices unless people start keeping their autos twice as long as we typically do.

The Consumer Electronics Association told regulators that it’s nonsense to project 30 years of supposed savings when consumers may use an item for only a few months. CEA proposes the industry develop its standards rather than be buried under government dictates. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers touts the improvements already made, such as success in doubling energy efficiency of dishwashers since 1980.

Nothing is ever enough for the green crowd, however.

How about the most common personal appliance: the cellphone?

The common turnover rate for cellphones is every two years, which includes a new charger each time. Bureaucrats claim the industry should standardize chargers for the 200-million-plus cellphones they sell each year. Then people could keep their old chargers when they get a new phone. They have a point there. Lots of us wish that power supplies were standardized, just like electric outlets, regardless of the brand or the product. Industry steps toward that would be surefire winners.

The Department of Energy claims its regulation on power supplies would cost consumers $143 million a year but save us $293 million. Of course, their claimed “savings” include speculative benefits from reducing carbon footprints.

And the chargers are small stuff compared to the requirements for larger appliances like refrigerators and stoves.

Even states are getting in on the act. The Institute for Energy Research reports that 11 states already have appliance standards going even farther than the feds.

Creature comforts like coffee makers, CD and MP3 players, electric blankets and even electric foot massagers may not be as common in the near future, simply because so many people won’t be able to afford the little luxuries of life.

Pick which ones you want and do without the rest. Rediscover the manual toothbrush even though the electric version plus a Waterpik protect your teeth better. Pile up the quilts on your bed. Use a hand egg beater.

The extra costs being added to each item may seem minor, but they add up to a major impact on our quality of life.

It’s not the end of the world, but is this interference with our choices really what our government should be doing? No, it is not.

Be prepared for a possible future of solar-powered clothes dryers. We used to call them clotheslines.

Tax Dollars Blowing in the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit

It appears most of the 'green' energy being created by these tax-payer funded wind-energy production tax credits is the 'green' fueling up the pockets of a select few crony capitalists.

When done reading the below, please click here to read about the crony capitalism infecting the wind turbine efforts on Lake Erie.

From Ernest Istook --

Crony capitalism plans are so lucrative for a select few that they are hard to kill. Those who get rich make generous campaign contributions, hire lobbyists and run massive public relations propaganda campaigns, using the billions of our tax dollars that they receive.

One “temporary” measure — the wind-energy production tax credit (PTC) — has received eight “temporary” extensions since 1992 and now backers want to add several years more. After 20 years of soaking taxpayers for billions of dollars in subsidies and raising electric bills, it’s overdue for the PTC to end. It expired at the end of 2013, yet some lawmakers want to give it new life, plus an additional $18 billion, during the post election lame-duck session of Congress.

Typically, those getting the money boast of being job creators or “green energy” saviors who will save our planet from roasting owing to global warming. They omit that the job numbers are inflated, often temporary and often filled by overseas vendors.

They also omit that taxpayers are paying twice — through taxes and through higher electric bills. Green energy is not cheap and not affordable. If it were, green energy would not need subsidies.

To maximize chances of backroom deals and minimize public accountability, the fate of the PTC will be decided as part of a tax package in the lame-duck Congress, when wheeling, dealing and political horse-trading are at their worst. That’s because Congress will have two years before facing the voters again. Departing senators and House members won’t have to face voters at all.

Green energy sounds good and polls well — until people learn how much it costs them. The Congressional Research Service reports the annual cost to taxpayers of green grants and tax subsidies is $40 billion. That’s only part of the picture, however. It also raises your electric bill because wind simply is less efficient than generating power from fossil fuels. And less consistent.

The managing editor of Environment and Climate News, James M. Taylor, citing the U.S. Energy Information Administration, writes, “Data show nine of the 11 largest wind-power states are experiencing skyrocketing electricity prices, rising more than four times the national average.” Those states are: Colorado, up 14 percent; Idaho, up 33 percent; Iowa, up 17 percent; Kansas, up 29 percent; Minnesota, up 22 percent; North Dakota, up 24 percent; Oregon, up 15 percent; South Dakota, up 26 percent; and Wyoming, up 33 percent.

These increases come even after federal taxpayers absorb some of the higher costs of wind energy by giving producers a subsidy of 2.3 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated. They’ve had this benefit for 20 years, but still clamor to revive the PTC, which expired at the end of 2013. Sponsors not only want it restored, but to make that retroactive to 2013 and to extend it through 2017. That would carry an $18 billion price tag.

Since 1999, the PTC has been renewed eight times, and three times the extension was retroactive. It had expired but was resurrected. Three resurrections is more than the rest of us get. The PTC doesn’t deserve a fourth.

In the lame-duck Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, is leading the push to revive the PTC. Fortunately, House members, such as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, Michigan Republican, have been unwilling to include that in the tax package that will be considered. It’s vital for House members to hold the line.

But the cronyists haven’t gone away. Their position is illustrated by how billionaire Warren Buffett explained his investments in wind power, “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Congress should resist all the pressures and let the thing die. Wind power is fine — so long as its backers don’t seek special favors. If it’s so expensive that 20 years of subsidies aren’t enough to make it competitive, then the sponsors need to improve their technology. They also don’t deserve the state-level mandates that force utilities to buy wind-generated power from them.

It’s overdue that we embrace free enterprise and abandon crony capitalism. We’ll have less national debt, and consumers will benefit from more affordable energy.

• Ernest Istook is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma. Get his free email newsletter by signing up at eepurl.com/JPojD.

Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obama’s plan

From Ernest Istook via Washington Times --

We taxpayers are expected to house, feed, clothe and care for almost 30,000 illegal aliens for a full year, according to the White House’s official request. That’s a small city.

Instead, we could fly all of them home for one-half of 1 percent of the $3.8 billion that President Obama proposes we spend. That’s a savings of 99.5 percent!

Most of his proposal is to pay living expenses. At the unofficial reported cost of $250 per person per day, President Barack Obama is proposing we spend $1.8 billion “to provide appropriate care for unaccompanied children.” That works out to 19,726 minors for a year. (The official term for them, written into federal statute, is “undocumented alien children.” Not undocumented immigrants, migrants or refugees. Those other terms are efforts at propaganda.)

In addition, Obama wants another $879 million “for detention and removal of apprehended undocumented adults traveling with children,” and “alternatives to detention programs” for these adults. He blends “removal” with “detention” to make it impossible to determine how many removals are planned.

If the money is all for detention, then the $250 per person reveals the plan is to house 9,632 adults for a year at taxpayers’ expense.

Combine 19,726 minors with 9,632 adults and you have 29,358 people. But it gets worse. The request is for a “supplemental appropriation.” In budget lingo, that typically means it’s for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. If these funds don’t cover a full year, either the cost per person is much higher or the number of people is much higher.

If the daily cost per person is less than $250, then the small city of illegal aliens we’re supporting will be larger than 29,358.

Although Obama asks for lots of money to take care of people permanently, he gives zero details about a timeframe for deporting or repatriating any of the persons involved.

The $250 a day figure compares with the $667 one-way cost of an airline ticket from McAllen, Texas, to Guatemala City, Guatemala, according to both Orbitz and Priceline. The combined airfare for 29,358 passengers would be $19.6 million. That is one-half of 1 percent of President Obama’s overall $3.8 billion request. Volume discounts and government rates would yield even lower fares. But even without discounts, sending everyone home right away saves taxpayers 99.5 percent!

It’s also closer to fly them from McAllen to Guatemala City than to Murietta, California. Only 1,297 miles compared to 1,549 miles. And no protesters.

But what about the red-tape processing that Obama says gets in ther way? We know the president skirts inconvenient laws when he wants to do so. And although there is some red tape for the minors, there is no federal law that requires officials to drag their feet on deporting the thousands of adults newly arrived from Central America. And no red tape on the accompanied minors. All of them can be placed on planes pronto, arriving home far more quickly than it took them to journey to Texas. And arriving there more quickly than flying to California.

Regarding the unaccompanied juveniles, officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson don’t seem to have read the law. Johnson told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the top priority is “doing right by the children.” Actually, the law states the top priority is to repatriate those children to their country of origin.

Before the lanague of that controversial 2008 statute outlines the red-tape processing, it explicitly states the goal of that process, namely that “the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence.”

That bears repeating: The statute says the goal is that the unaccompanied alien children “are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence.”

Interestingly, that law foresees a problem if minors are released in the U.S. to custody of fellow illegal aliens. The statute requires officials to make sure that a potential custodian is someone who is trained to recognize his “responsibility to attempt to ensure the child’s appearance at all immigration proceedings.” Obviously, that disqualifies anyone who himself is in the country illegally.

We don’t have to borrow and spend another $3.8 billion to fix the problems created by President Obama’s irresponsible promotion of amnesty. It’s far cheaper to follow the law and to send people home. That also is the best way to discourage other people from following in their footsteps. 

​Hear Ernest’s daily radio show, noon to 3 p.m. Eastern, online daily at www.kzlsam.com. Get Ernest’s free email newsletter. Sign up here.

Obama's Deportation Rate Hits Record Low - NOT Record High!

From Ernest Istook --  

Although the Obama administration claims deportations have hit an all-time high, they’ve actually hit record lows, covered-up by a shell game of phony numbers, said Jessica Vaughan, the Center for Immigration Studies’ director of Policy Studies.

Ms. Vaughan’s report went viral Monday morning about how 68,000 convicted criminals were released by immigration officials last year rather than deported. She revealed the bigger bombshell about phony deportation numbers during her interview on my talk radio show Monday afternoon on The Washington Times Radio Network.

The true number of deportations in 2013 was 135,000, the lowest since 1973, she told me — only one third of the 400,000 that is often claimed.

“These numbers show that the president is hardly the deporter-in-chief as so many of the ethnic advocacy groups have tried to paint him,” she told me. “A better title would be releaser-in-chief … because ICE is now releasing more illegal aliens than they are trying to deport when their agents find them in the interior of the country.”

How do they manipulate the numbers?

She described a cover-up that substitutes numbers from the Border Patrol — which apprehends those who have newly crossed our borders — and using them to pump up ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which is supposed to apprehend and deport violators from the interior. Those apprehended by the Border Patrol are transferred to ICE custody just before being returned to their country of origin, enabling ICE to claim a statistic but without having to enforce the laws in the heartland.

“It’s really just a shell game of numbers,” Ms. Vaughan said. “But the kind of enforcement that most people would notice, which is in our communities, has gone down very dramatically in the last couple of years”

And how about the 68,000 convicted criminals who ICE had in their custody — but then released last year?

“Crime is not a job Americans won’t do,” she said. Yet, “people who have committed crimes here are being sent back to our communities when they should be sent home to their countries. These policies create real victims.”

ICE’s official internal reports unfortunately do not detail the specific offenses involved, but Ms. Vaughan said ICE chooses to treat as lesser offenses certain assaults, vandalism, sex crimes, and DUI’s. She described those drunken drivers as “a serious hazard on the roadways but not being taken seriously by immigration officials … until you get to three convictions or more.”

For someone killed or injured by a drunk driver, that’s three convictions too late.

The entire interview with Jessica Vaughan is available in the podcast of my March 31st show, and is on The Washington Times’ radio page: http://www.washingtontimes.com/radio/

Ernest Istook spent 25 years in public office, including 14 years in Congress. He was rated one of the top 25 conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then was a Heritage Foundation fellow and a fellow at Harvard’s Insitute of Politics, where he led a study group on Propaganda in American Politics Today.

Washington's Budget Deal: The not-so-perfect gift for Christmas?

From Ernest Istook --

THE NORTH POLE, December 12, 2013 - Santa Claus has just made an emergency order of extra coal for this Christmas. It’s to fill the stockings of those supporting Washington D.C.’s latest budget deal.

But there’s a unique holiday spirit in Washington, so those receiving the coal will re-gift it to those who oppose the budget plan, with cheerful gift tags attached and addressed to “Ebenezer Scrooge.”

Since the whopper budget deal of August 2011, we have added over three trillion dollars to the national debt. Each new agreement teaches us the gift of giving, because our government knows it is more blessed to spend more than you receive. Politicians put a happy face on deficits, just like gift-wrapping the garbage before putting it under the Christmas tree.

Few were surprised at the latest announcement from House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA). These proclamations have become predictable, almost like prophecy. For unto us a deal is born. And the government shall be upon its shoulders and shall not be shut down. And the deal shall be called wonderful.

The choir of angels was missing, but President Obama sang praises. It was like the sound of herald trumpets to hear the pronouncements that spending will be reduced under the agreement. Yet it’s like silent night if you ask when that would happen.

In place of gold, frankincense and myrrh, this budget deal delivers $63 billion in additional spending during the next two years. Reductions in spending are sometime in the eight years thereafter. You can settle down for a long winter’s nap while you wait.

But, hey, it’s Christmas season. Everybody buys now and pays later, right? That’s what makes for a wonderful life!

If you have read the details of the new budget deal, you have seen the list they have made and perhaps you have checked it twice. It can get pretty confusing. For example, here’s part of the report from Politico:

“The bipartisan package includes $63 billion of ‘sequester relief,’ $85 billion of total savings, and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. The agreement would set the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 at $1.012 trillion, and $1.014 trillion in FY 2015.”

This is what drives Santa to insist on more than milk and cookies. The new plan spends more than the old plan, but offsets the new spending by raising fees. So even though spending goes up, the deficit doesn’t go up and neither do taxes. Clear?

Sure, it raises airline ticket fees, but look at the bright side. It doesn’t raise fees on Santa’s reindeer. Possible new fees on Christmas trees are supposed to be in different legislation, not the budget bill.

When they bragged this week about “lowering the deficit,” that is not the same as lowering our debt. Even balancing the budget is less likely than a white Christmas in San Diego, much less reducing debt. The national debt remains up on the housetop, at over $17.2 trillion and headed even higher under this budget deal. Having ANY deficit means your sleigh is headed in the wrong direction; the amount of deficit only tells you how fast.

No, our national debt won’t drop under this proposal, but only The Grinch would expect that. (And perhaps his relatives, like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots, American Conservative Union, Club for Growth. The ones who are getting nuttin’ for Christmas from the Washington insiders).

But this is the most wonderful time of the year. Even Washington and the American people learn they share something in common. At this time every year, millions of us decide we’re going on a diet—after the holidays. Meantime, we will enjoy ourselves. That’s what we did last year and the year before and the year before that. Too many of us still carry extra pounds from not keeping previous diets, just like Uncle Sam carries extra bloat from not keeping past promises to control spending.

Why should anyone believe this year’s promises that politicians will behave responsibly with future spending when past promises were not kept? That is the biggest single problem with the latest budget proposal. None of the numbers matter; only that principle matters.

So just remember the song:

He’s spending while you’re sleeping

He spends when you’re awake

He spends on things both bad and good

So slow down for goodness’ sake

You better watch out

You better not cry

You better not pout

I’m telling you why

Uncle Sam is not Santa Claus.

Obama's problems have not slowed down his agenda; he's speeding it up!

From Ernest Istook --

WASHINGTON, November 25, 2013 — Scandals and embarrassments don’t slow down President Obama like they would other politicians. Instead, Obama is speeding-up his effort to re-shape America to match his vision.

His collapsing support in national polls has shortened the time that Obama has to act. Just as a football team uses a hurry-up offense when time is short, Obama goes with bold and high-risk efforts. Unlike a football team, Obama gets the rules changed to help him win.

Democratic Senators have given Obama the power to behave even more dictatorially than he has already. Changing the Senate rules was crucial to approving Obama’s appointments for key positions:

• to make rules and regulations through the executive branch, by-passing Congress

• to have those rules and regulations upheld by Obama appointees in the courts 

• to control key positions even after Obama leaves office (like Janet Yellen to run the Federal Reserve and lifetime federal judges)

• to protect Obama’s veil of secrecy from threats, such as by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said he would block nominees until witnesses were made available on the Benghazi terrorist attack

The Senate rules change is not the only sign of Obama’s hurry-up offense, however:

• The White House readily took the heat for its blatant political move of extending an Obamacare deadline so people won’t get more premium “sticker shock” until just after next year’s elections. As Congressman Steve Stockman, R-Texas, tweeted, “Just a few weeks ago even suggesting moving Obamacare deadlines was ‘arson’ and ‘terrorism.’ Now it’s White House policy.” 

• Last week Obama couldn’t spare three hours to go to Gettysburg for the national commemoration of Lincoln’s great speech. “Too busy” making sure the Obamacare website got fixed. This week the President is off for a three-day fund-raising trip on the West Coast. 

• Obama has also been reaching out and encouraging activists to engage in demonstrations for his pro-amnesty immigration reform as well as for Obamacare.

So far, the Senate rule change is the most dramatic act that allows Obama to press his agenda while he can, at the same time embedding his people in key positions to influence America’s course long after his term.

That’s why Obama personally lobbied Senators to change filibuster rules. The White House won’t confirm who were the final three Senators that Obama won over, nor what may have been offered to them. The change was made to benefit Obama, not the Democrat majority in the Senate. Obama needed the endless talk of changing the rules to result in action before his window of opportunity slammed shut. Now his nominees need only 50 votes (since Vice-President Joe Biden can break any ties) for approval, not 60. The 45 Republican Senators can be disregarded.

The impact is bigger than the power to appoint. All the talk about impact on future presidents and on the culture of the Senate is elitist chatter to a community organizer like Obama. It’s now that counts, to create a widening ripple effect that becomes harder for Obama’s successor to reverse. The Democratic senators gave Obama the tool for bypassing the entire Congress on a host of matters. Obama can have federal agencies issue edicts and expect his newly-appointed judges to uphold them. Only a narrowly-divided Supreme Court could block those, the same court that did not block Obamacare.

The Senate did not change the 60-vote standard for Supreme Court nominees — yet. But nothing could stop Democrats from helping Obama by lowering that to a 50-vote margin if a vacancy occurred.

Obama now expects to get his three nominees (Robert Wilkins, Cornelia Pillard, and Patricia Ann Millet) approved immediately for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has jurisdiction over most appeals involving federal rules and regulations. That gives Obama appointees control of that all-important court, whose rulings can be reversed only by the Supreme Court. It’s his protection for the aggressive regulatory agenda that is on its way from Obama’s executive branch.

Obama appointees will saturate America with stringent new environmental restrictions, requirements to make bad loans to the “under-privileged,” dictates to hire people regardless of criminal records, gender identity rules on schools and businesses, more social engineering, and plenty more that is being overshadowed for now by the attention given to the Obamacare mess.

Undoing the damage done by Obama’s fast-tracked appointees may be as tricky as undoing Obamacare. Once millions of pre-existing individual policies have been cancelled, and soon millions more of pre-existing group policies are cancelled, how can they be brought back? Once millions of people rely on Obamacare subsidies and expanded Medicaid, how can it be taken away?

The public realization of Obama’s deceptions is only an opportunity; not a reversal. As Winston Churchill once explained, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. “

We should not be fooled by efforts to create an image of a president who is chastened and humbled by the blunders of Obamacare. Some conservatives are celebrating as though Obama’s agenda is toast. They should know better. The tenacity of Obama and his loyalists is immense.

Obama’s loyal bureaucrats are hard at work. He is organizing his community for his next wave: rallying activists, urging the left to launch protests, and hoping to catch everyone else off-guard. The rest of us would like to relax during the holidays. It would be a bad mistake to expect that Obama’s people will.

Obama KNEW in 2010 that 93-million or more would lose current insurance due to Obamacare

From Insights, Issues & Istook --

In the fine print of Obama Administration documents from three years ago, it shows they knew Obamacare would outlaw far more than the 5% of policies which they now claim are involved. Instead, it’s 93-million Americans, including group and employer-based coverage as well as individual policies.

Obama has known all along that 93-million people would lose their current insurance due to Obamacare.

The White House is in full-blown cover-up mode, claiming President Obama has saved Americans from supposed second-rate, predatory, bad-apple or shoddy insurance companies.

Their crime? Offering affordable insurance that people wanted to keep. No, it didn’t cover everything like Obamacare does. But few can afford a policy that covers everything–just like flying first-class costs too much, or staying in luxury hotels.

In the fine print of Obama Administration documents from three years ago, it shows they knew Obamacare would outlaw far more than the 5% of policies which they now claim are involved. Instead, it’s 93-million Americans, including group and employer-based coverage as well as individual policies.

Obama lied to get votes, saying if you liked your insurance you could keep it. Now he’s lying to cover it up; so we can expect that his lying will never stop.

In FORBES, Avril Roy reveals an obscure Obama Administration report published in the June 2010 Federal Register.  

As he writes:

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?

President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.

Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”

But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price.

In an earlier FORBES article, Chris Conover calculates a larger number of Americans will lose their current coverage, namely 129 million of us. You can read that article HERE; it includes his calculations.

A chart from it is below:

Obama's TV Pitch on Obamacare: Overwhelming Questions, No Answers

From former Congressman Ernest Istook via Washington Times -- 

WASHINGTON, October 22, 2013 — President Obama flunked as a TV pitchman and as President Monday. Everyone understood why that lady fainted.

“Operators are standing by to take your Obamacare calls.” But they weren’t.

Let’s face it. Carrier pigeons, the Pony Express and snail mail (with real snails) are all faster than the Obamacare website. No wonder President Obama urged everyone to bypass it.

President Obama should have been serious and contrite about a major problem. Instead, Obama joked that now the website will be fixed…because he’d told people that the problem made him mad.

His personal feelings are not our measuring stick. Only three weeks ago, he was boasting that Obamacare was ready to rock and condemning those who proposed delay.

Monday we heard a gimmicky speech and a sales pitch for a product that doesn’t work. Not just a website that doesn’t work and an 800 number that didn’t work either, but a product that doesn’t work. Millions of insurance cancellation letters and premium increase letters are testimony that the product itself doesn’t work.

There is a reason why all the other TV pitchmen give demonstations. Ginsu knives. Sham-Wow. Snuggies. Vegomatic.

Poor Barack Obama didn’t dare show his product onscreen. Imagine Ron Popeil or Billy Mays telling their audience what Obama did, “That product is working. It’s really good. And it turns out there’s a massive demand for it.”

But no proof. No demonstration. No numbers. Nothing about 99% premium increases or doubled deductibles and high co-pays. Not even the number of customers.

McDonald’s once kept a running tally on their signs, starting at 5 billion served and updated until they surpassed 100 billion. Now it’s just “billions and billions served.” 

Obama will only tell us the traffic count, not the customer count: “So far, the national website, HealthCare.gov, has been visited nearly 20 million times.”

That’s probably a million people each trying twenty times to create an account. Iowa just proclaimed its first successful Obamacare customer. Edward Voss said it took him over 100 tries. In the Rose Garden, Obama was introduced by Janice Baker, Delaware’s first Obamacare enrollee. It took her seven hours and she had to bypass the website.

They should make a children’s book about people who somehow signed up for Obamacare. You could tell the kids, “See, there’s Waldo. But can you find the Obamacare enrollee?”

The White House keeps us confused about more than just numbers. What’s the difference between enroll, apply, sign up, register, and purchase when it comes to Obamacare? Is the process anything like signing up at Costco? Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must think this is words with friends because they keep us guessing about each term. But they won’t answer questions.

For Obamacare, you have to create an account, be approved, submit financial data and find out whether you’ll get a taxpayer subsidy, all before you’re allowed to shop for a plan. Then you might put one in the cart to come back and buy later.

Keep it simple. Will they at least tell us the number of buyers? We might as well ask the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal.

The White House team play other tricks, too. For example:

• Blending state numbers with federal numbers. That lets them pretend the Obamacare exchanges are anything other than a bust.

• Pretending the only problems are computer glitches. Obamacare is inherently complex, costly and confusing. Just wait until we find out they’ve mis-allocated billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. The website is not the real problem; it’s only a symptom. Obamacare itself is the problem.

• Claiming low premiums are the same as affordability. Or that a subsidized premium is a low premium. Premiums are only part of out-of-pocket costs under both individual and group policies, and both types are hit by Obamacare. Higher deductibles and higher co-pays are causing sticker shock, too; it’s not just the premiums. And Obama cherry picks abnormally-low examples to cite.

From the Rose Garden, Obama told us he would not sugarcoat the problem, then he proceeded to do just that. But one of the insiders who saw Obamacare put together, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, told an interviewer it could take three years to fix the programming.

This cannot go on. When President Obama told us, “Nobody’s more frustrated than I am,” hands shot up in living rooms all across America. He has a lot of competition for that claim.

Obama has put himself in a corner by making Obamacare the driver of the federal budget, the symbol of government activism, and his sword against Republicans. Even on small things, he seems incapable of admitting his mistakes. But on something this enormous? So he continues to bluster in his usual way.

We are not talking about a $19.99 Vegomatic here; we’re talking about one-sixth of the American economy. But according to Obama, the problem has only progressed from a glitch to a kink. What’s next? A wrinkle?

The selective and slanted information being spooned out by the Administration is propaganda; but the information they’re concealing is now into the realm of coverup.

Why Trust any Budget Deal after 2011's $2.1 Trillion Debt Hike Ripoff?

From former Congressman Ernest Istook via Washington Times -- 

WASHINGTON—October 18, 201 – This is Obama’s Nirvana!

The new budget deal passed by the government this week breaks an enormous promise to the public, destroys long-time safeguards over spending, and grants the President almost total control over the full faith and credit of the United States.

It breaches the trillion-dollar promises to control spending made only two years ago.

Why should anybody trust today’s promises when those 2011 promises had such a short shelf life? The issues and threats were the same as they were this year, namely prospects of a government shutdown and of defaulting on the federal debt.

Agreement came sooner that time, as President Obama and Congress raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. They also promised to match the increase dollar-for-dollar by reducing spending by $2.1 trillion.

This week’s budget deal becomes the means to dissolve that spending restraint. President Obama and Democrats are openly pushing and succeeding they say in ending the limits from the 2011 agreement. And too few Republicans are resisting.

Those spending cuts, known as the sequester, were already gimmicky.

In the first place, while the $2.1 trillion was borrowed and spent right away, the spending reductions were to be spread out over 10 years. That’s not a genuine one-to-one; it’s one-to-ten.

In the second place, the sequester was not spending cuts as everyday people define them. It’s actually spending increases, but at a lower rate than was planned. It’s like only driving 20 mph over the speed limit rather than 30 mph over.

There’s even a third place: The sequester was back-loaded. It presumed that elected officials of the future would be more disciplined at controlling spending than today’s politicians. The first year of the 10-year sequester plan—last year—didn’t produce 10% of the savings, namely $210-billion. Instead, it produced only $85-billion in “savings,” which is only 4%.

Even though the sequester concept originated with his White House, President Obama now routinely denounces it, as do most Democrats. Republicans are mixed in their approach to the sequester, although House leaders have mostly come to embrace it as the only thing that helps hold spending in check even though it doesn’t reduce spending.

Once they cashed in and spent that $2.1 trillion increase in debt, President Obama and a host of Senators and Congressmen developed amnesia. They got what they wanted so now they don’t even remember promising any fiscal restraint. They spent the money and want no part of the discipline.

We can expect a repeat performance once they spend this year’s increase in the debt limit. All promises of future restraint will evaporate. That’s why it’s so dangerous to give Obama expanded authority to borrow money without needing approval from Congress. Checks and balance require that Congress must have the ability to negotiate and extract concessions as a condition to that approval. But they won’t have it under the new plan.

National debt has risen more than $6 trillion so far during Barack Obama’s Presidency, even before he gets unchecked borrowing power.

This 2013 agreement allows unlimited borrowing for the next few months. That will include money for the Treasury Department to pay back the money it’s taken out of federal retirement funds since May—probably over $250 billion—because it couldn’t go out and borrow it.

Obama gets his wish of not having to negotiate conditions in order to borrow. The historic safeguard requires Congress to approve a credit limit in advance. The new protocol lets a President borrow unless Congress passes legislation to disapprove. Simply by vetoing that legislation, a President can borrow whatever he wants unless two-thirds of Congress then votes to stop him.

These details are only now coming to light. The details of the 2011 agreement have been known, but amazingly there’s been little public talk about whether it would be thrown overboard. That’s because a great many politicians want to escape any tough decisions of holding the line on spending.

Only in Washington, DC can a $2 trillion promise be treated as something that’s easy to ignore.

There were 269 House members who voted for that $2.1 trillion package in 2011: 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats. In the Senate it received 74 votes: 45 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Most of them are still in Congress. And of course President Obama is still around.

We should ask them, press them and demand of them that they keep their commitments. They already got the money and they already spent the $2.1 trillion. Why should we trust them with any more borrowed money? Especially since it’s borrowed from our children!

Political promises evaporate quickly. It’s borrow and spend now—or tax and spend now—and we promise to make spending cuts starting tomorrow. That tomorrow never comes, but the tomorrow when the bills arrive will get here eventually.

House Republicans Have Hurt their Chance to Defund Obamacare

From former Congressman Ernest Istook via Washington Times -- 

WASHINGTON, October 2, 2013 — Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives may have painted themselves into a corner. They evidently will settle for symbolism to end the ongoing government slowdown. That would leave virtually all of Obamacare intact and more difficult than ever to defund or repeal.

The most-recent House vote lowered the GOP’s demand significantly. The original vote (Plan A) coupled funding for the rest of government with a defunding of Obamacare. The second vote late Sunday night (Plan B) offered to fund all of government in exchange for two things: a) a one-year delay in the individual mandate, plus b) enforcement of the requirement that Congress get its own insurance through Obamacare.

By lowering their goals voluntarily, the GOP has reduced the chance that they will accomplish anything substantive rather than symbolic regarding Obamacare.

Rather than accepting Plan B, the White House is standing back while the media trashes and blames Republicans for what is called a shutdown. (Huge parts of “essential” government remain on-the-job, so” slowdown” is a term that fits much better.) When Obama figures he’s gathered enough election year ammunition, he could pivot. Posturing as magnanimous, Obama would need only minor negotiations to close a deal along the lines of Plan B.

The House essentially has backed down to a mostly-symbolic demand. Under Plan B Obamacare continues to get all its money. Obamacare’s exchanges would still provide coverage, but purchases would be voluntary the first year rather than mandatory. The lighter load of customers would give breathing room for the system that was overwhelmed by the torrent of inquiries on its first day.

Some political gurus will claim that delaying the individual mandate makes it easier to go after the rest of Obamacare. To the contrary, it makes it harder to attack the rest of the law. Plus there already are reports that a dozen or so House Republicans are ready to back down now and support a “clean” funding bill that leaves Obamacare totally alone.

The House’s Plan B permits the vast majority of Obamacare to march ahead unimpeded. After one year the individual and employer mandates would both be back and would be as deadly as ever to companies, workers and our economy. Under Plan B, the problems with the mandates would disappear from public attention—driven undercover for a year rather than being publicized as they are now.

Any time that one segment of major legislation is revised, it protects the surviving portions by reducing the demand for change. Carving out the individual mandate and letting it stay in place (even though delayed a year) lessens the pressure to deal with the rest of Obamacare.

Insurance companies would object to a one-year delay because they want the guaranteed source of new Obamacare customers. Obama’s bureaucrats might create an offset or they might tell insurers to buzz off, just as they’ve so far stiffed some labor union allies.

Thanks to the one-year moratorium, Obamacare would essentially be vaccinated and protected from further attack. That means, for example, that these other provisions would no longer have significant opposion:

• Historical forms of private insurance would be outlawed.

• The provisions of Obamacare would become locked-in for all insurance policies and would continue to be a major cause of skyrocketing premiums (due to guaranteed issue, no pre-existing conditions, etc.).

• The tax would remain on medical devices.

• Employers would still be intimidated by the delayed-but-still-coming mandate on them. They would continue the trend of shifting full-time workers into part-time jobs and holding part-timers below 30 hours a week.

It would become harder than ever to repeal or defund Obamacare if the President and Senate Democrats accepted the House’s Plan B. The President would proclaim he’d compromised enough. The wind would go out of the sails for many champions of the repeal-or-defund effort.

How about the Plan B provision that Congress must get its coverage through Obamacare? Expect to see backdoor maneuvers such as raising staff salaries to compensate for higher costs. For Representatives and Senators, there’s also another avenue. They would increase their use of the boutique health care they receive through the Office of the Attending Physician in the Capitol Building, plus special care through Bethesda Naval Hospital (now combined with Walter Reed).

The Senate might insist that the House go it alone in living under Obamacare. That’s because only one-third of the Senators must face the voters in 2014 (or any election year). Thanks to six-year terms, they enjoy insulation from the public’s wishes.

Once Obama’s team feel the press has pounded Republicans enough, they could posture as heroes rescuing the nation from heartless Republicans. They would use that theme constantly in the 2014 campaigns. By claiming already to have compromised on Obamacare, the White House could insist the law is now off the table, including a refusal to address it during negotiations over an increase in the debt ceiling.

By dropping back to a weaker position, without any concesssions from Obama, House Republicans have undercut their own position. Maybe Obama’s stubborn narcissism will prevent him from taking the deal. Or maybe he’s just waiting for the right moment.

In any event, the Plan B put forth from the House GOP won’t help defund or repeal Obamacare. In all likelihood, they’ve made those goals even more difficult to reach.